Talk:People

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This subject is featured in the Outline of people, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.

This article was nominated for deletion on April 6, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents 1 Celebs? 2 Classification 3 Layout 4 Why dont They Delete This 5 Why is this even neccesary? 6 Why does this article exist? 7 He thinks he's people 8 Mass Noun

[edit] Celebs?

Why is there a special page for celeberities of just one culture? It seems completely out of place. David Youngberg 19:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I had noticed this as well and thought this was unusual. I believe it was added in this edit. I will remove it.--GregRM 21:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

People are weird we all do different things like being bums or being a richi person like Richi Rich

[edit] Classification

Does it make any sense having a classification the begins with:

"Peoples (in ethnic sense) are usually classified by how they look. Main groups of peoples include:"

and then, instead of classifying people by how they look, classify them by the language they speak!? --80.39.153.102 18:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

From my perspective there are a number of places in this article where text runs under pictures etc. While i'm not exactly wikisavvy enough to fix it I figured I might as well bring it to people's attentions. 69.248.195.94 18:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.82.19.190 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why dont They Delete This

I know but i is a way to talk to poeple

This is just one of those pages that makes teachers tell kids not to use wikipedia !!!!!!!!!! Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.101.109 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

i know EXACTLY what you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.5.10 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I so agree with you guys. All my teachers tell me not to use Wikipedia. I dont listen to them though. Who does? Ilovebirtbikes 23:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)IlovedirtbikesIlovebirtbikes 23:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this even neccesary?

Why does there have to be an article on people? Hopefully everyone knows who people are (unless they are not people...?) This article is, in my opinion, unneccesary. Please correct me if i am wrong, but to me, this is just unneccesary.--Vegen8tor 04:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment.

I agree that this article is not necessary. The word "People" belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. I'm new to Wikipedia, but does anyone agree that this page is a candidate for deletion and if so, do they know how to start the deletion process? Petmal 10:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion??? This page obviously exists so that...

• intelligent animals
• aliens
• God
• sundry other angels and demons
• supernatural beings not to mention
• feral children

...can come to a greater understanding of or be further entertained by people. ClaudeReigns 12:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've attached a {{prod}} tag to the article, as this seems to be the consensus.--Old Moonraker 15:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Panser Born has removed the {{prod}} tag and calls for the article to be expanded. --Old Moonraker 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now nominated the article for deletion discussion. --Old Moonraker 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being difficult. =) I just think that what is surely such an integral topic to any encyclopedia shouldn't be deleted. Vegen8tor mentioned that "everyone knows who people are". While this is indeed true, almost everyone knows what food is, yet we have an article on that too. I'm sure there's some way to expand on this - perhaps something about different ethnicities? Maybe the distribution of people across the world? Let me know what you think. Cheers, -Panser Born- (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

For me it's a question of "too obvious to include", but perhaps this only applies to the dismal state of the page at present. Both of the topics you mention are valuable, but already have articles: Ethnicity and Migration. You are not being difficult: this is what the discussion page is for! --Old Moonraker 06:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks to a lot of hard work on this article I have withdrawn my support for deletion on the AfD page, with great pleasure. Old Moonraker 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You ARE right This is unassisariy Ilovebirtbikes 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)IlovedirtbikesIlovebirtbikes 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article seems redundant since it's already covered in much more detail in the article on humans. If there's anything in the other article that's missing, but here, why not merge it in, and then have this article redirect to humans? 72.197.74.80 (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this article exist?

One of the reasons why this article exists is that the main page shows eight top-level topics (represented by portals) including "Biography". At the time, the portal was named "People". Even the current Category:Biography has to distinguish that it is about published literary works that are biographies, not about Wikipedia articles that are biographies. This "People" article existed for reasons of symmetry so that there would be a samed-named article/category/portal for each of the eight main subjects. It has broken down a little since then, but you get the idea. BTW: Those eight subjects are not the only top-level view into the categories: You can start in Category:Categories and see that Category:Main topic classifications and Category:Fundamental also attempt to provide top-down starting points. In fact, we use to have a category called "Top_8" for the MainPage starting points. The subject of "People" immediately splays out into a dozen different areas of society, civilization, government, medicine, the human mind, intelligence, emotion and whatnot. You can see the same problem in Category:People. Anyway, if this article were redirected to the "Biography" article, or just imitated what the People category does, it would probably be no great loss.--76.203.126.18 23:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

THIS VIOLATES WIKI STANDARDS! why is this locked??? i am reporting this by the way. who ever locked this article is going to be banned from doing this ever again on wiki. thank you, have a nice day. --70.42.211.4 03:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Just a question, but why is there a "do not" in the sentence "Religion, philosophy, and science do not show or represent modes and aspects of inquiry which attempt to investigate and understand the nature, behavior, and purpose of people." I assume that this is a typo that was overlooked before the page was was semi-locked, and hence I can't correct it. 70.79.19.99 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on the discussions above about this article's relevance: one thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned is the importance of "the people" as a political category, which the article touches on. It's not equivalent to "masses", "the working class", "the proletariat", etc., and has a significant history of use in a wide-range of political and cultural movements. On those grounds alone, there's good reason for it. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

This could be made into a disambiguation page but then each entry would merely be a stub. The term people, just like the term person, has many different uses but they may very well be the same.

The English noun people has two distinct fields of application:

• as a countable noun, a group of humans, either with unspecified traits, or specific characteristics (e.g. the people of Spain or the people of the Plains).
• as a mass noun, people is the suppletive plural of person. However, the word persons is sometimes used in place of people, especially when it would be ambiguous with its collective sense (e.g. missing persons instead of missing people). It can collectively refer to all humans or it can be used to identify a certain ethnic or religious group. For example, "people of color" is a phrase used in North America to describe non-whites.[1]

People is plural of person, so the entire page could probably be deleted and instead redirect to the person article. 96.245.13.233 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) people should act like peps not like animals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.42.2.5 (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] He thinks he's people

Though it seems I am adding it here rather than the article because it's late, and I am quite sick of the crap you get when editing Wikipedia, but I think a few points should be made.

A friend joked that "robots are people too" and I Jokingly agreed, "yes, robot people", but "people" or "person" is often applied to non-humans.

For instance what about Aliens? God? Animals? Non human Cartoon characters? and yes Robots, well kinda.

And what about Corporations? In law corporations are considered to be people and have the rights of a person, or at least so I've heard.

So maybe someone could add something about the extension of people beyond the human. 121.98.130.163 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mass Noun

People is not a mass noun (= uncountable noun); it's a plural noun when it means "persons".

Plural noun: Two people.

Mass noun: Two pieces of information (not two informations).

1) People is a plural noun:

people
plural noun
1 human beings in general or considered collectively: the earthquake killed 30,000 people | people think I'm mad.
(Oxford Dictionary of English)

2) But information is a mass noun:

information noun [MASS NOUN]
1 facts provided or learned about something or someone: a vital piece of information.
(Oxford Dictionary of English)

93.2.191.172 (talk)Demian326